Appeal No. 95-5061
Application 07/825,979
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13.
We further note that the remaining independent claim, claim
5, recites the following limitation:
means for carrying out a discrete event simulation
process have multiple parallel transactions by
execution of one transaction at a time until the
transaction is blocked by an occurrence of a blocking
event, the means for carrying out the discrete event
simulation process including means for generating a
stream of trace messages, the trace messages describing
occurrences of pre-select events during execution of a
first transaction and the switching of the discrete
event simulation process to a next transaction upon
occurrence of a blocking event to the first
transaction, wherein the means for carrying out a
discrete event simulation includes means for
controlling and execution of, and changing a state of
and displaying the state of the simulation process in
response to commands received from graphical user
interface means.
For the same reasons above, we find that the Examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing that either Luke or Raeder,
independently or together, teaches the above limitations.
Therefore, we have not sustained the Examiner's rejection of
Appellants' claims.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 5, 7 and 8 is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007